). Bear in mind Television is NOT a Necessity, doing without is will not prove to be fatal. When times are tough people are forced to make sacrifices to make ends meet, and more and more people are doing that as well. IMO the entire Industry is at a turning point, and if they continue to plod along on their current path, they will only end up in oblivion.
While I quite agree about the state of the economy as a whole, there are other reasons why a full "collapse" for satellite TV won't happen. Mainly, it's because people like me have no other option, plus the expense of putting up a large outdoor tower antenna just for locals. I live in an area that has no cable service at all and am far enough outside any large city to get OTA without a very large mast for an antenna. Keep in mind, this is how satellite started out, no one except those not serviced by cable were all customers of satellite. But due to programming packages such as those DirecTV has, lagging quality of cable networks having a lot of trouble or falling behind current trends, others where cable does reach have become satellite customers. Therefore, even if satellite lost 50% or more of their subscribers that had cable options, it really wouldn't matter that much. They have a certain percentage of built-in customers they know can't be serviced elsewhere and will have to have satellite from either DirecTV or Dish if they want any channels at all.Regulus said:
I don't get it. I understand "premium" channels (ie Viacom), but a local broadcast channel that is given free spectrum by taxpayers should make their signal available to everyone in their local market regardless if they are using an antenna or not. It might not be a bad idea to call your affiliate and tell them that you used to watch their 5PM and 11PM newscasts but now that they aren't available you are checking out the local ABC or CBS affiliate and watching the two shows that mattered on to you online.
I'm not sure of how this works, but when DISH came up with this problem with one of our local channels they provided links on their web page and numbers to call to make the exact complaint you're talking about.Adam Gregorich said:
You Said It! When I cut the cord I missed watching my Sporting Events, but I got over it. I know the Networks don't miss me, after all they make over 1 Million Times the money I used to pay for my Subscription ($65.00 a Month in 2006) selling ad time for various "Adult Products" (Such as "ED Pills" (Which are aired at times when Children are watching, and even during Kids Shows themselves). :f If I really HAVE to see a Sporting Event (Such as this years Sugar Bowl, which featured one of my favorite teams, the one that won BTW.Stan said:
) I just walk down the Street to a Sports Pub, buy a Glass of Beer for $6.00 and watch away. Sure beats paying $129.00 each month (The amount it would cost me to restore what I used to watch) for the "Privilege" of watching it at home! 
The "must-carry" provision does undermine the carriers' bargaining position with the local affiliates, but the reason the affiliates have started charging rebroadcast fees is simple: the revenue the affiliates make from advertising is no longer sufficient to keep them in business on its own. When the economy collapsed at the end of the Bush years, the advertising market -- particularly the local TV ad market -- collapsed with it. The broadcast stations need the rebroadcast fees to survive. I want a robust local news operation, and I consider the chunk of my cable bill that goes to that rebroadcast fee well spent.Adam Gregorich said:
